0
Usenet Posted 23 years ago
Usage

The Monty Hall Problem encore

I recently read "The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time" by Mark Haddon. I rather enjoyed this interesting novel (a sort of detective story written from the POV of someone with Asperger's Syndrome, which is a form of mild autism).
In the book the "hero" propounds the Monty Hall Problem, most adequately explained here http://www.faisal.com/docs/monty.html (and elsewhere all over Usenet and the Internet).
The problem is that I don't believe the logical argument. I have been to dozens of sites, learned and stupid, some even pornographical, but I simply don't buy the statistical theory.
The problem I have with it is this. Once one of the doors has been eliminated, the choice is functionally identical to the choice one would have faced were there only two doors and one prize to start with. I simply don't accept that removing one of the dummy doors is anything other than a red herring.
The logical proof reminds me Zeno's Paradox wherein Achilles couldn't overtake a tortoise.
You may very well ask why I am posting this here. Well, the mathematicians can't convince me, but their primary language is Boolean, whereas mine is English. I am hoping that someone here more polyglottal than I can translate successfully.
Edward

The reading group's reading group:
http://www.bookgroup.org.uk
  

Top answer

[nq:1]I recently read "The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time" by Mark Haddon. I rather enjoyed this interesting ... language is Boolean, whereas mine is English.

  • [nq:1]I recently read "The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time" by Mark Haddon.
  • I rather enjoyed this interesting ...
  • language is Boolean, whereas mine is English.
  • [/nq] You do see that when you first picked the one door out of three, you were probably wrong, don't you?
  • That's important.
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

64 Answers
0
[nq:1]I recently read "The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time" by Mark Haddon. I rather enjoyed this interesting ... language is Boolean, whereas mine is English. I am hoping that someone here more polyglottal than I can translate successfully.[/nq]
You do see that when you first picked the one door out of three, you were probably wrong, don't you? That's important. 1 of 3 is less t
0
[nq:1]I recently read "The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time" by Mark Haddon. I rather enjoyed this interesting ... language is Boolean, whereas mine is English. I am hoping that someone here more polyglottal than I can translate successfully.[/nq]
Variant:
There are 1000 doors. You pick one you know that your chance of being right is 1 in 1000.
Monty opens 998 doors.
I
0
[nq:1]I recently read "The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time" by Mark Haddon. I rather enjoyed this interesting ... start with. I simply don't accept that removing one of the dummy doors is anything other than a red herring.[/nq]
Argh! Flee in terror! (Sorry. I've seen this come up regularly since about 1983.)
I put a deck of cards face down. You pick one, leaving it face down.
0
( Monty Hall problem )
[nq:2]The problem is that I don't believe the logical argument. ... the dummy doors is anything other than a red herring.[/nq]
How about, try the Semantic theory.
First, you really do need to understand the rules. Some folks don't follow the logic because they imagine that the rules are something different.
I found it hard to believe that the rules were what-
0
[nq:1]In the book the "hero" propounds the Monty Hall Problem, most adequately explained here http://www.faisal.com/docs/monty.html (and elsewhere all over Usenet ... have been to dozens of sites, learned and stupid, some even pornographical, but I simply don't buy the statistical theory.[/nq]
Is your point tha
0
[nq:2]I recently read "The Curious Incident of the Dog in ... that someone here more polyglottal than I can translate successfully.[/nq]
[nq:1]You do see that when you first picked the one door out of three, you were probably wrong, don't you? ... than half. One of the other two doors probably will win, even if we don't know which, at the beginning.[/nq]
I do realise that, according to the
0
[nq:1]I put a deck of cards face down. You pick one, leaving it face down. I then pick up the ... this and my presenting two cards, one of which is the ace of spades, and allowing you to pick one?[/nq]

I just KNEW that if I posted this here instead of rec.puzzles I would get an answer that satisfies. Yourself, Matti and Donna have done the business. I can get on with my life, or I would i
0
[nq:2]I recently read "The Curious Incident of the Dog in ... the dummy doors is anything other than a red herring.[/nq]
[nq:1]Argh! Flee in terror! (Sorry. I've seen this come up regularly since about 1983.) I put a deck of cards ... this and my presenting two cards, one of which is the ace of spades, and allowing you to pick one?[/nq]
That's is a good explanation, Evan. I know you're exa
0
[nq:1]Variant: There are 1000 doors. You pick one you know that your chance of being right is 1 in ... of being right is still 1 in 1000. Therefore switching to the other door must improve your chance to 999/1000.[/nq]
Wrong. Or at least incomplete.
If Monty opens 998 doors AT RANDOM, your odds don't improve at all by switching to the other door.
But if Monty knows which door is right
0
[nq:2]I put a deck of cards face down. You pick ... the ace of spades, and allowing you to pick one?[/nq]
[nq:1] I just KNEW that if I posted this here instead of rec.puzzles I would get an answer that satisfies. Yourself, Matti and Donna have done the business. I can get on with my life, or I would if I had one.[/nq]
Too bad Evan got to you first. I would've offered to play the game with

Related Questions